Are you? Correct, it is the most likely theory since there is no other valid explanation or theory. Certainly none from the OCT. Why on earth would I need to provide you evidence for something that has never been officially investigated or even addressed? Why would you even expect me to provide any evidence for anything with respect to 9/11? That's not my job nor do I have access to any 9/11 evidence. It is the most likely cause/theory, period, end of story. Do you have a better theory? Who cares? It happened no matter how much explosive (or any other kind of) force is needed. Cha, cha, cha, Mr. OCT apologist. You make no sense. Exactly, which one do YOU believe it was (since it did happen)? Planes, damage, fire, a combination?
That's correct, there is no such thing as enough research when it comes to 9/11. As for you, all you needed to do was to read the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report and say amen. Nothing more for you to see here.
Then why are you spewing this BS, when you should be researching. It seems you researched the wrong things. apparently you cannot answer the most important questions.
It's called an educated guess based on video evidence, science, expert analysis, deductive reasoning (i.e. nothing else fits) and common sense, among other things. No one knows exactly, definitely not you. I have yet to hear what your "guess" is, you keep avoiding answering. I wonder why? If you're so confident the OCT is correct, you should have quickly "guessed" multiple structural components weighing 4 tons were laterally ejected at high speed (I believe some measured at 50-70 MPH) at a distance of 600 feet (give or take), some embedded into adjacent buildings, by plane, damage, fire or a combination plus gravity. Why is it you can't spit it out? C'mon Gamo boy, don't be embarrassed, just parrot NIST, that's all you know how to do.
Bobbie, nothing of what you presented is an educated guess, and certainly none of it is yours, just BS presented by people writing books, stirring up the ignorant, and the anti government masses. You don't even try to make educated guesses, on any of the questions you refuse to answer.
Why are you so evasive? Why do you devote so much effort refusing to discuss a subject YOU brought? Likely answer: because you have something to hide, and you regret hell out of bringing up the subject of laterally directed energy. Reason: the lateral direction of energy is fatal to the NIST explanation, and we all know it.
Science? You're kidding right? What science/expert analysis are you referring to? You can't even post numbers that show it's possible to laterally eject a 4 ton structural assembly at high speed out to 600 feet! Tell us Bobby. What "expert analysis/science" are you referring to that shows it's possible that some sort of "explosive force" could do what you claim to believe?
You mean like when you being up a claim and then when asked for evidence to support it, you always tell people it's old information and the links probably don't exist anymore? Look in the mirror Eleuthera.
And as for you, all you need is for people to say/agree that the "OCT" is false. Nothing more for YOU to see here.
I have spoken about the subject repeatedly ... what haven't you? ... tell us oh enlightened one about the lateral forces at play ...
what floor were the transformers on. It would take a lot of them, and really big ones, for a building that size.
good question ... I talked to an EE at a conference about 10 years ago that was part of an upgrade to the towers in the mid 90s ... I don't recall the rating but he explained that they went from 1 transformer per floor to 1 every 3 floors ...
Yep. Nope. Ah playing stupid. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/
I don't need anyone to say anything. The OCT is false on its own merit. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/page-69 Post #1375 It's YOU who relies on the OCT and defends it 24/7. It's also YOU who has yet to answer what your guess is as to what force caused these 4 ton structural components to be ejected at those velocities and found 600 feet from the towers. You've been posting all sorts of shenanigans to evade the question phony one. You're so obvious.
I saw one blow when I was walking my dog a few years back. Lucky I was still about 50 yards away. Knocked down the pole, throwing it across the street.
That's funny. I don't see anything from that link that addresses your "science and research" based thinking that provides evidence that 4 ton structural assemblies where ejected laterally at at high speeds due to explosions. You just keep dancing and dancing.
Where is the "science and research" that you believe shows this to be true Bobby? I keep asking you questions about it and you keep dancing.
I'm still waiting for Bobby to provide his evidence that actually SHOWS these 4 ton structural assemblies being ejected laterally at high speeds. Then we can move on to the numbers which show how much thermite or explosives are needed to actually DO what he believes possible. No wonder he avoids providing this information.
I know, you're blinded by the OCT obviously. I don't have any evidence that I own. The evidence speaks for itself. These 4 ton objects were found 600 feet distant and some were embedded into adjacent buildings. These ejections had to have been ejected at high velocities for them to be found at these locations. Here is a video analysis of the rate of velocity of some of these ejections. Here's another: Still no guess huh? Keep avoiding the question fake one. Cha, cha, cha.
Considering the pressure on the structure, anything could be blown out of the building, Things weighing a lot more than 4 tons.
So it HAD to be an explosion of some kind right Bobby? It couldn't have been part of a perimeter section that toppled sideways after being hit by descending debris? You STILL haven't provided evidence of explosives or thermite have enough power to eject a 4 ton structural assembly 600 feet. Your video evidence doesn't prove HOW they got 600 feet away. Keep dancing Bobby.
Can you actually point me to a photo of this "found" structural piece that was 600 feet away or is your source just making this up?
